|
|
|
New Republic writer and now blogger Gregg Easterbrook says that Schwarzenegger could not possibly have written the op-ed under his name in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
As someone who has taken shots at Hillary Clinton for pretending to be the author of her ghostwritten "Personal History," I would be remiss if I did not take a shot at Arnold Schwarzenegger...Set aside that he's an airhead, though his instinct to admire Milton Friedman is right. (During last night's California gubernatorial debate I kept waiting for one the candidates to point at AHH-nold and say, "You're an airhead! And everybody knows it!" Wouldn't that have gotten the central fact of the Schwarzenegger candidacy on the table?) Schwarzenegger could not possibly have written the article "by" him because it contains an error on one of the few subjects on which he is a thoughtful observer, his acting career.
The article says, "Messrs Davis and Bustamante remind me of the androids I kept fighting in the 'Terminator' movies." They weren't androids!...There's no way AHH-nold himself could have missed an error that has to do with one of his own movies. This means he not only didn't write the article; he never read it.
How sad that we've come down to the definition of the word "android"....
Posted by: Kynn Bartlett at September 25, 2003 08:04 PMThis is a ridiculous pretext for even a minute's worth of blogging. Who can possibly still be surprised to find that a pol didn't write his/her own op-ed? Even Reagan, who was a better writer than most, and who wrote many of his own speeches, signed off on op-eds not his own.
Posted by: joseph at September 25, 2003 08:25 PMThe New Republic guy writes "this means he [Arnold S.] not only didn't write the article; he never read it."
I'll go so far as to say it's not too presumptious for Easterbrook to assume Ah-nold didn't write the op-ed piece, but it's really presumptious of him to assume Schwarzenegger didn't read it either.
If Easterbrook is one of those typical left-leaning types whose judgement and observations on so many occasions tend to be rather poor, I'd say the likelihood of his comments being wrong about Arnold's essay are almost a given.
Posted by: Samuel at September 25, 2003 09:12 PMHuh? I always thought an android was a humanoid robot, which would apply to the T-1000 in Terminator 2, and the T-X in Terminator 3. The T-800 model played by Arnold would more accurately be called a cyborg, however, since it used living tissue. The T-1000 and T-X, however, only mimicked living tissue.
Posted by: LYT at September 26, 2003 04:08 AMI have never seen any convincing evidence that Arnold CAN read. It is well known his movie scripts are recorded on audio tape for him to learn the same way people learn English as a second language from audio tapes that pronounce all the words to be learned.
Posted by: Joe Galliani at September 26, 2003 11:17 AM
of LA Observed
Lacking the ability to do this deep analysis is what kept me from getting an A in College English Lit.
Might be a good point if you got Arnold to tell you what an android is. You and he may have a different meaning for the word.
Thaks for the great insight, it's truly valuable.
Posted by: John at September 25, 2003 07:59 PM